posted December 30, 2004 11:53 AM         

I think it's one of those things that you dont really ever reach a conclusion on anyway. Everyone sees it a different way and every way is okay. All we can do is use it to better ourselves. And as long as we're doing that, we're doing okay. That's really all that matters. It's not who has it figured out better than the other. Or what the exact definition of it is. At whatever point we are looking at it from, we have a chance to use it to our advantage.

posted December 30, 2004 12:11 PM         

Very well said.

posted December 30, 2004 12:28 PM         

I was reading the Kybalion the other day and came across this quote that we've probably all heard before, but it really hit me and made me stop and think about myself and my responses in this thread. The quote is: "Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know"

I liked that. And I thought, "Hmmm...maybe I dont know what the hell I'm talking about...." LOL *sigh*

All we can do is try. And keep an open mind in the process. It actually makes me feel better to know that we really never will have it all figured out. I dont think our mortal minds could completly fathom the ways of the Universe. We arent meant to have it all figured out anyway....

posted December 30, 2004 12:58 PM         

"Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened unto you." "Seek the Truth and it shall set you free" I

Indeed. And there are alot of people who dont even really try to do that. So I think we're ahead of the game in that aspect.

I dont believe we are being sent on a wild goose chase either. I also dont think finding it is as hard as we make it out to be. I think it's about finding your peice of God-self within (at least a big part of it anyway) and living it. But that can be a long road BUT! Also worth the effort. We are all sparks of the Big Flame I think. And one of our major goals as humans is to re-member that - live that. We are awakening one by one. Slowly but surely. I dont think we will see everything in God's Creation either. Only he could see that clearly. If we could, we wouldnt be here. Right? What would be the point? We can get close if we try though....

posted December 30, 2004 01:00 PM         

Really though, one's ego is that little rise of .... anger? Frustration? That curable ill that tugs within all of us when our core is challenged, or when we feel the need to defend ourSelves. It's like the cancer shell, or the water bearing indifference... it's the ailment that we all have, and all have the power to learn from and overcome. It is nessecary within us, it can act as protection when no other will fit, but it also teaches us (hmm, kinda thinking Saturn=Ego right now.... more on that later..) when that kind of protection is no longer nessecary... Like a guide book in self actualization. We all have an ego, and we all deal with our inner struggles differently, the ego will be the 'seen' reality of that; or how we negatively deal with ourSelves.

I agree with 26 that it is not a healthy thing, and all defense mechanisms are detrimental and self defeating.... There are reasons that most people have their defenses up, or carry out their Self-protection in ways that actually hurt themselves more than help, but I truly believe all things that happen to us should be looked at more positively.... things happen for us, not to us. The ego likes to trick us into thinking that we should build up walls, that we are alone and the world is out to get us... so we must have pride and arrogance to get us through. That is one of the tricks of the mind/heart that we should all try to rise above. It's an illusion, and in order for purification of the mind, al illusions must be dissected and destroyed. Not an easy process at all, it takes many years to realize this, and to put it in action, the pain we let in may be hard, but after we have gone through our purification, we can look back and not recognize the fear we once knew...

Man, I went and lost the plot again.... I'll have to have a real think about this and return when my thoughts aren't so scattered... that could take a while.. lol

posted December 30, 2004 01:30 PM         

In awareness of that, I feel I'm at a advantage point now. That is what ego should help you achieve, a better understanding of yourself. By being aware of it and how it can negativly affect you, you now have a choice of what to do with it.

quote:

---

things happen for us, not to us.

---

....life is good when you can step outside of yourself. By trying to live in awareness.

You are right, not always easy. But by changing our perception, we can change it all.

posted December 30, 2004 01:39 PM         

I guess I dont know for sure that certain people arent trying to find out the ways of the Universe. We are all on our own paths and ultimeatly figuring things out in one way or another. But I know a few who really could care less to talk or think about this kind of stuff. Maybe they are the ones ahead of the game....I dont know.....

You know, sometimes I think I come across as a "know-it-all-teenager", but I really dont mean to. Nor do I think I know it all.......nor am I a teenager...lol I read my posts sometimes and find myself annoying. (is it ego centered to re-read your posts? hehe....just spell checking people!....just spell checking ) Just give me a little slap if I start acting like a know it all... .....Then my ego will get offended and I'll be snappy and I'll eat my words again. *sigh* .......

posted December 30, 2004 02:01 PM         

“Egotism”, in the sense in which I am using the term, does not mean “selfishness”. It means something more like “self-satisfaction.” It is a willingness to assume that one already has all the knowledge necessary for deliberation, all the understanding of the consequences of a contemplated action that could be needed. It is the idea that one is now fully informed, and thus in the best possible position to make correct choices. --Richard Rorty

And this is soooooooooo true!!

Intolerance is a form of egotism, and to condemn egotism intolerantly is to share it.
--George Santayana

Still thinking...

posted December 30, 2004 02:21 PM         

Great quotes Ghani. Indeed.

I think this is one of those never ending subjects. One which is very important though and worth alot of thought....

Well, I'm off now. I've been at this cafe since early this morning chattin' it up here in LL, and I'm only on 3 hours of sleep. *yawn* I'm starting to wilt. But it seems I've been making sense and not coming of as a complete wingnut. hehe ....spelling is probably off....

You girls are great....Thank God for this place. I dont know what I'd do without it sometimes.

posted December 30, 2004 03:25 PM         

To me Ego is like pebbles in the ocean.
Thats my definition. Just as pebbles are different kind, so does everything manifested out of Ego or fruits of Ego such as hatred, selfishness, fear,...etc....

I hate typing especially since English is my second language..

posted December 30, 2004 08:05 PM         

quote:

---

e·go
The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality.

An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.
Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

---

Maybe 26 you are reffering to the psyche as above? And maybe I am more talking about the self as above? And I think IAT is reffering to "exaggerated sense of self-importance"? I mean, the will to transcend and all that.

quote:

---

In psychoanalytic theory, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and mediates between the person and external reality.

---

Here again, 26, I think you are talking about the psyche and conscious, while I am reffering to the external reality.

quote:

---

1: the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality —compare ID, SUPEREGO

---

Again. And the last definition:

quote:

---

1: an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others [syn: egotism, self-importance] 2: your consciousness of your own identity [syn: self] 3: (psychoanalysis) the conscious mind

---

IAT:1
ME:2
26:3

One last note, right and wrong is completely subjective - to state the ego is negative is your own projected view (maybe through the ego?) of what you perceive it to mean. All things have pros and cons. But I do think we are talking about the same thing, just maybe different languages Sorry that I didn't mention everyone, but I don't really have too much time.

posted December 30, 2004 08:49 PM         

Dean, I wrote a long post to you on the previous page. Once again, I dont think the ego HAS TO BE BAD. Like anything you can use it positively or negatively. Most people not being fully aware of what it really is and the negative effect it *can* have in spiritual terms, dont pay much attention to it.

quote:

---

I also don't think anger, selfishness, envy or anything is a bad thing. They are all things we live through and learn from. If you consider them bad, then you might start fearing them and end up obessing over them. This is the path to self destruction. We need to accept what we feel.

---

Exactly. I dont differ in that understanding. I think if you read my post to you, you might see where I'm coming from. Because it's not where you think it is.

I see that you believe your ego is the same thing as your personality. And you said to remove that you would be removing the personality too. I dont think ego and personality are the same thing. This is one of the areas where we differ.

When you try to become One with the Universe, I do not believe then you lose yourself. I think this is what is to be strived for. You never lose yourself! It's impossible! Why would we not be here to do that??? We are here to recognise our seperatedness? I dont agree. We're here just to live in our negative human emotions, learn from them, but just keep repeating them? Because after all we are human so we must remain that way. We have negative emotions, so let's learn from them but not try to transcend them?? I dont think that makes sense. When you do learn from the negative, you are trancsending! Trancending doesnt mean you will eventually evaporate and lose yourself! Not in my eyes anyway.

quote:

---

One last note, right and wrong is completely subjective - to state the ego is negative is your own projected view (maybe through the ego?) of what you perceive it to mean. All things have pros and cons.

---

I dont know what else to say Dean. Because by reading what I have wrote you can see that, I dont view the ego as "completely negative". And you dont need to tell me that all things have pros and cons.

Kat,

"Far too complicated to explain." I agree.

Evidently I got it wrong as well because you two were speaking of it in a spiritual aspect as well? Interesting. To me your definitions seemed more psychological.
You did say you could see where you could see where I was coming from when you read my posts....maybe you dont anymore.

No need to apologize. I think this is one of those things that's turning into a debate like politics or religion. Which is a never ending discussion. Ones which I try to stay away from.

to Julia Cameron. She's the one who wrote The Artists Way, I believe. I bought the book awhile back but still havent read it. I take it you have? It seems like a fabulous book, I've got to spend sometime on it.

*tries to bow out of thread again* LOL

posted December 30, 2004 09:03 PM         

I do think envy, anger, etc., etc. are bad. Are they good? They certainly shouldn't be feared. (In fact, maybe fear should be third on that list.) But they should be understood and mastered, no? I don't associate these things with my ego. Selfishness and self-awarness are two very different things. My self-awarness is part of what fuels my conscience, which in turn helps me differentiate between right and wrong.
*sigh* Oh sh!t, dean, now we're back to the moral relativism debate.

posted December 30, 2004 09:16 PM         

Indeed, indeed. What are we to do?

posted December 30, 2004 10:30 PM         

26, I get the impression of negativity with ego from many words in this thread. Here is Ghani's words:

quote:

---

Really though, one's ego is that little rise of .... anger? Frustration? That curable ill that tugs within all of us when our core is challenged, or when we feel the need to defend ourSelves. It's like the cancer shell, or the water bearing indifference... it's the ailment that we all have, and all have the power to learn from and overcome. It is nessecary within us, it can act as protection when no other will fit, but it also teaches us

---

Phrases like "curable ill", "cancer shell" (allthough maybe this is astro? OK maybe this ones not negative), "ailment", "overcome", etc. This feels like ego is seen negatively. 26, you may not have said this, but then you said:

quote:

---

Very well put Ghani. I agree wholeheartedly. Yes, I do think anger, frustration, and similar emotions are quite often all about the ego. I still battle it as it was evident at one point in this thread.

---

You agreed wholeheartedly, but maybe not completely. You still "battle"? I mean, I guess your saying the battle's not negative, ubt to me it is. The resultant lesson might not be negative, but it sounds like the path might be. I dunno. Maybe I'm putting words into your mouth again. My point was that I considered ego as a part of life - neither negative or positive. If someone uses it for better ot worse, then so be it, but that's them.

Believe me, I read everything you wrote, but it's difficult to quote everything, which is why maybe I should reread it all and see what we're trying to say more clearly. I mean, you might think this is a debate, but I'm merely trying to understand everyone's views, not sway anyone's opions. I get the sense that you're saying I'm saying you think ego is negative, but I'm not exactly doing that, I'm just stating that I think it's neither. Um... to reply.

quote:

---

I see that you believe your ego is the same thing as your personality. And you said to remove that you would be removing the personality too. I dont think ego and personality are the same thing. This is one of the areas where we differ.

---

No, it's not hte same thing, I was saying it's like it, and they are very much entwined. The personality is in many ways a reflection of your ego. If you consider the ego as tied to the material realm, then the personality as seen in the material realm is very much influenced by the ego. To remove the ego is to remove the material associations it has, and therefore the personality tied to matter. I just mean if the ego is how you see everything, then the personality reflects this view. They are not the same thing. We don't differ here, but maybe have fairly different angles. Maybe we do.

quote:

---

We are here to recognise our seperatedness?

---

I'd say more celebrate our independence, which is "seperatedness" I guess. We do need to see that all people have different views though, as sometimes this seems to cause war etc.

quote:

---

We're here just to live in our negative human emotions, learn from them, but just keep repeating them?

---

No, I'd say we're here to experience. Life, emotions, love, etc. Also knowledge is fun. Basically anything you want to experience. Then you learn what happens after such experiences. If you don't learn, then maybe you will be the recipient of such experiences by others etc. I mean, like I said, I don't think any emotions are negative - they just are. If you see them as negative, then so be it.

quote:

---

When you do learn from the negative, you are trancsending!

---

Well, I disagree. Transcending IMO is about being, experiencing and understanding. Yes, learning is involved, but so state this happens only from "negative" events/emotions I think cuts out half the opportunities (depending on the percentage of negative vs positive or indeed indifference). It is said you can transcend through sex a fair ammount. Linda believed love will do it (I wrote a thread around here concerning that). Or even meditation. Even by mowing your lawn. My point is that transcendence is completely personal, you can't exactly teach it as all people are different.

quote:

---

you two were speaking of it in a spiritual aspect as well?

---

No, I wasn't (if I was one of the two). I think the ego is completely material, but matter is energy. I mean, the higher self could have an ego too as it is energy. Makes me wonder if God has an ego. Of course she does! We were created in their image! To say God is too superior for ego is to once again say the ego is negative, or there is something wrong with it. Why can God love but not have ego? I don't think God hates or condemns... anyhow, I'm getting sidetracked.

I still think our views are pretty similar, we just use different words and have different angles, which I have to say, makes this "debate" enjoyable for me. I'm learning heaps. And yet, a lot is flying over my head too, so I do have to reread this thread. Maybe later.

Tink,

I'd say yes to understood, but I think impossible to master. I mean, I know violent or angry people should try to control themselves, but their actions come from somewhere else that's creating the anger. It is there that needs the focus, not the anger. The violence if required should be dissipated in energy at the gym or building a house. Too many people are so lazy that they just take their emotions out on anything close to them, but they should understand and be aware of what they feel and how to deal with it. If envy is bad, then you would never strive to obtain achievements that you are envious of. Envy should be admired as to who you want to be. If you envy someone their great career, then change yours. If you envy someone their partner, then maybe you shouldn't be with yours etc. It teaches so how can it be bad? Likewise anger. If someone attacks your friend, will you stand up for them? What fuels your defence? Anger is also necessary to pretect children from incompitent teachers or to help people understand how they're treating you. Without anger you would be meek and walked over. This is also fine though. Gandhi achieved a lot like this. The meek shall inherit the kingdom. or something like that. My point is all emotions are there for reasons. Understand the reason and you've solved the problem. Without the emotion you would never know to look for the reason.

Fear. I think I said this one already - the mother who runs in front of traffic to save a child? Very necessary.

Yes, I like your description of self-awareness, but there's one con. You are only aware through your eyes - which could be said to contain the ego. Hence, if you have a strong ego you may not see anything "wrong", and will keep hurting people etc. Then it's up to them to be aware of what you're doing and to stop it or remove themselves from the equation.

Sorry, but you lost me on "moral relativism debate" are you reffering to the Truth thread by Dr Suess (or whatever) in GU?

"psychology is really just the atheist's version of spirituality" Interesting. I disagree though. Only because spitualists have faith. Atheists don't - they view themselves as living for themselves and creating their own lives, which is cool, but the spiritualists turn it around and say "well, God helps!" Psychology IMO is just the realm of thoughts or conditioning. Understanding why we do things or avoiding habits etc. But I think they're worlds apart.

Anyhow, just some thoughts. Don't know if anything's clearer about my view point, but that's me. I honestly don't want to offend anyone, I just love philosophising.